Anthony Barnett (London, OK): I can guess how David Cameron will handle the issue of a referendum on the European Treaty - as one of trust - although what priority he gives it will say a lot about how he intends to play an early election. But I am very curious to see how he responds on Britishness and the national questions within the UK. Will he be so very British and understated as to not mention Britain at all, as the sort of thing one does not need to do, just as Brown decided not to mention the Tories?
It is not an easy one for a politician to get right - I don't think Brown did. Take blogger Prodicus. He has just argued that "One cannot be British and NOT be a member of one of the nations of Britain. There is no such thing as a 'floating Britisher', who is NOT English nor Welsh... and so on".
This is simply untrue. I know people who were born outside the UK, went to school in Scotland and now live in London and do not think they are anything but British, and like it that way. One of the strongest streams of support for the union is a cosmopolitan Britisher who likes the looseness and does not want to be more nationally specific. Like it or not, they are British. I can argue the point theoretically as well, if you want me to.
In his same vein effort to insist on the verity of our national building blocs Prodicus writes, "the efforts of the Romans, despite their vast initial success, finally came to nought. We reverted to our tribes and we became nations". As if the awful Romans intended to stymie the fonts of national surgence. You know, they ruled Britain for 350 years, which would take us back to Cromwell well before the Union and most nation states. If a blogger assured Brown his new 'British' statement of values would "come to naught" because it will not last beyond 2357 I think he'd risk a smile.
